The guidance on these weapons seem very impressive. Most attacks seem to be hitting the tanks while they're on a highway.
The russian tanks are shitty, and have no infantry support. So its hard to draw conclusions about how his would work against a competent foe.
It's hard to know exactly what's gone wrong for Russia in Ukraine, but the reports we're getting point to a huge failure to properly implement combined arms & close support tactics. It seems Russia either didn't anticipate the need-- thought they'd flatten their way to Kyiv so fast it didn't matter-- or their forces consist too much of undertrained non-professional conscripts. The conscript tour of duty in Russia is really too short to hammer home complex tactics and discipline for this sort of thing. 12 months is just too little time to game out the variety of scenarios they might encounter, and so when the one they were (presumably) trained for in this invasion meets initial resistance they don't know how to react. And that's before the logistics issues enter into things... Unfortunately that means Russia may fall back to simply bombing things to rubble and picking up the pieces. It looks like their plan was to take the country & install a friendly government fast enough to keep infrastructure and cities mostly intact, but now that that has failed it looks like they're moving towards the "rubble" approach which does not require the same level of ground training and tactics. Air superiority and long range artillery by Russia can do that.
I also suspect they would fare little better than a lone T-80 wandering around an urban environment without competent infantry support. Also, BMPT was designed around the Grozny threat environment: antiarmor teams on rooftops raining down RPGs and Molotov cocktails from above. The Ukrainians haven't been forced to resort to those tactics (yet) as they have advanced Western weapons to employ from greater distances and with greater lethality.
A foot soldier with a weapon that costs a tenth of a million to fire. The asymmetry is given in Ukraine because they have enough Javelins but I doubt it exits to that degree in any conflict.
A russian T-90 costs ~$5M to buy, but also requires a crew of ~3 trained people, plus munitions, plus a good deal of fuel, and logistics support to move it around.
The asymmetry in Ukraine is first and foremost Russia having way more troops to burn. Economic and manpower held equal, rocket infantry certainly seem like they have a higher return than tanks on total operating costs
I would also argue that the advantages of tanks no longer apply when you face anything but non state backed rebels, especially in urban environment. Syria showed it rather well with the few TOWs that the US provided to the rebels.
With drones it became check mate. All they are are giant defenseless targets, just look at Azerbaijan. They are not much use for anything but crushing civilians.
Not if they're doing combat air support they don't, unless they only use precision guided munitions or cruise missiles, which are expensive.
The tank's problem is less that it's vulnerable to anti-tank missile, but its high visibility, now relatively weak weapons and vulnerability to air assets (which is also high visibility again).
NLAWs are even cheaper and easier to use but don't know their estimated kill rate.
My point was that the tank isn't doomed there - if vulnerability to anti-tank missiles was the only issue, armies would research and deploy active defences everywhere and the tank would be important as it was.
I think the problems are elsewhere. When infantryman can deploy offensive power outranging the canon, one needs to ask why have the tank when the infantryman requires so much less logistics. If say, the tanks could use a heavy mobile laser, than the equation would be different.